The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

In a July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Donald Trump repeatedly urged the foreign leader to investigate a matter with Rudy Giuliani concerning former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.

The report cited anonymous “people familiar with the matter.” It explained:

“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” whether allegations were true or not, one of the people said. Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation.

Consider several important features of this reporting. First, the story comes from the Wall Street Journal, rather than the Washington Post and New York Times, which have broken previous developments in the story of an intelligence community whistleblower who has been stymied in trying to turn over a complaint to Congress. According to the Post and the Times, the whistleblower was alarmed at a “promise” Trump made to a foreign leader in discussions related to Ukraine. In a letter that has since become public, the intelligence community inspector general, who reviewed the complaint, indicated this week that the whistleblower’s concern is urgent and credible.

It’s not inherently suspicious, of course, that another prominent news outlet would build on a story first exposed in the Times and Post, of course. But it’s a sign the reporting may come from different sources.

Second, building on this point, the Journal’s reporting seems to have a different focus than the Post and Times stories. It doesn’t mention a “promise” of any sort, and it is more forthright in asserting that the call in question was with the Ukrainian president, rather than alluding to this fact. This again points to the possibility that this could be coming from different sources.

Third, this reporting specifically pushes back on the idea that there might have been a quid pro quo in the phone call. Questions about this fact have arisen given that some reporting suggests Trump may have used a delay of funds to Ukraine to induce Zelensky to launch the Biden probe. Even without this reporting, though, the fact of the delay of the funds and Trump’s clear desire to see Ukraine go after Biden would have supported the inference that he’s strong-arming the government. But the Journal report seems to be trying to tamp down this speculation.

So what could this mean? It suggests to me that the new report could be coming directly from sources in the White House or the DOJ — and for the purpose of defending the president. The Times has reported that details of the complaint, which has been stalled by the DOJ, have also been shared with the White House. While the story has been unfolding, Trump-friendly officials, or Trump himself, could be pushing to get information out to the media that would deflate the quid pro quo speculation. The Journal report, notably, doesn’t even mention the whistleblower complaint itself until the second-to-last paragraph.

None of this is to suggest that the Journal report is false. Reporters at the newspaper are as good as they come, and they’re not likely to be manipulated into printing lies for the administration. But it is conceivable that the White House could be using the paper to reveal specific details that tamp down suspicions, perhaps misleadingly. Even if it’s true that Trump didn’t float a quid pro quo in this phone call in question, one might point out, that doesn’t mean it didn’t come up at another point.

From the beginning, the situation has been a flagrant abuse of power. As more details are revealed, it’s only looking worse.

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, left, and former President Donald Trump.

Photo by Kevin McCarthy (Public domain)

In the professional stratum of politics, few verities are treated with more reverence than the outcome of next year's midterm, when the Republican Party is deemed certain to recapture majorities in the House and Senate. With weary wisdom, any pol or pundit will cite the long string of elections that buttress this prediction.

Political history also tells us that many factors can influence an electoral result, including a national crisis or a change in economic conditions — in other words, things can change and even midterm elections are not entirely foretold. There have been a few exceptions to this rule, too.

Keep reading... Show less